2021 Supreme(SC) 669

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. KHANWILKAR, SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GOSIKHURD PROJECT AMBADI, BHANDARA – APPELLANT
VERSUS
MAHESH AND OTHERS – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6673 and 6674 of 2021 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 13093-13094 OF 2018), CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2021, (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 13089-13090 OF 2018)
Decided on : 10-11-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Section 11A of 1894 Act and Section 25 of 2013 Act prescribe two different periods of limitation with adverse consequences, as on failure to make award acquisition proceedings lapse.
(2) Section 25 of 2013 Act would apply to awards made and published under Section 24(1)(a) of 2013 Act – Limitation period for passing/making of an award under Section 24(1)(a) in terms of Section 25 of 2013 Act would commence from 1st January 2014, that is, the date when 2013 Act came into force.
(3) Contrary intent can be expressed or gathered by necessary implication – Ambit of repeal cannot be wider than boundary envisaged by repealing enactment – A comprehensive repeal may be limited if repealing enactment directly or by necessary implication clamours that it will not apply to certain matters.
(4) A statute which is prospective in its direct operation cannot be called as retrospective because a part of requisites for its action is drawn from time antecedent to its passing.
(5) Unless language of provision dealing with period of limitation clearly manifests, in express terms or by necessary implication, a contrary intention divesting vested rights, such provision is to be construed as prospective.

Headnote:

(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(1)(a) – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 11A – Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Section 11A of 1894 Act and Section 25 of 2013 Act prescribe two different periods of limitation with adverse consequences, as on failure to make award acquisition proceedings lapse – Choice is between Section 11A of 1894 Act and Section 25 of 2013 Act – Acquisition proceedings are preserved under 1894 Act till stage of making of award – Where an award is not made, provisions relating to determination of compensation under 2013 Act would apply; where award is made, proceedings would continue under provisions of 1894 Act as if said Act has not been repealed. (Paras 14 and 15)

(B) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Sections 24(1)(a) and 25 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 11A – Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Section 25 of 2013 Act would apply to awards made and published under Section 24(1)(a) of 2013 Act – Limitation period for passing/making of an award under Section 24(1)(a) in terms of Section 25 of 2013 Act would commence from 1st January 2014, that is, the date when 2013 Act came into force – Period during which Court order would inhibit action on part of authorities to proceed with making of award would be excluded while computing period under Section 25 of 2013 Act – Issue of notice by Collector to persons interested, which is to be given to persons not present personally or through representatives when award is made, is to be issued immediately, but issue of notice is not a condition precedent for making award – Belated issue of notice would not legally affect validity of award, though there may be other consequences – Equally, limitation period to challenge and question compensation awarded would commence on service/intimation about making of award on landowners – When satisfied that award was made/ published within prescribed period, even when there was backdating of award or delay in effecting service on landowners, land acquisition proceedings need not be set aside – Impugned judgment setting aside award and holding that acquisition proceedings had lapsed, set aside – Acquisition proceedings had not lapsed and award is legal and valid. (Paras 39, 40 and 41)

(C) General Clauses Act, 1897 – Section 6 – Effect of repeal – Section 6 of General Clauses Act interdicts common law principle that an enactment after repeal is ineffective as if it had never existed, except as to matters past and closed – Section 6 is a general transitory provision that resurrects operation of repealed law in terms of comprehensive and broadly worded clauses (a) to (e) – Repeal does not affect anything duly done or suffered under repealed enactment; any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired or accrued under any repealed enactment; or any investigation, legal proceedings or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, etc. – Legal proceedings, investigation or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any penalty, punishment or forfeiture may be enforced as if repealed Act or regulation were still in existence notwithstanding its repeal – However, savings of Section 6 do not apply to some extent or in entirety when legislative intent is different – Contrary intent can be expressed or gathered by necessary implication – Ambit of repeal cannot be wider than boundary envisaged by repealing enactment – A comprehensive repeal may be limited if repealing enactment directly or by necessary implication clamours that it will not apply to certain matters. (Para 7)

(D) Limitation Act, 1963 – Sections 3 and 5 – Bar of limitation – If limitation period is shortened but claimant has time to sue before expiry of shortened period, then notwithstanding that he is likely to be statutorily barred if he does not sue within shortened period, retrospectivity may be given effect to – When law extends limitation period, benefit of extended period applies to proceedings to be initiated that are not time barred – Per contra, if limitation period is extended after shorter limitation period has already expired, which could have been an absolute defence for the party sued, then it may not be fair to deprive party sued of accrued right of claiming such defence – Absence of express limiting words is not to be used as a basis for implying retrospective operation as this would be reverse of true presumption – However, presumption in favour of retrospectivity may be necessary when distinct implications typically arise in context of statute which repeals a previous statute, and would leave a ‘lacuna’ if new statute were not construed as having retrospective effect – A statute which is prospective in its direct operation cannot be called as retrospective because a part of requisites for its action is drawn from time antecedent to its passing – A construction which results in unreasonably harsh and absurd results must be avoided. (Para 13)

(E) Limitation Act, 1963 – Sections 3 and 5 – Bar of limitation – Law of limitation is generally regarded as procedural as its object is not to create any right but prescribe periods within which legal proceedings should be instituted for enforcement of rights or adjudication orders should be passed – Statutes of limitation have retrospective effect insofar as they apply to all legal proceedings brought after they come into force – However, laws relating to limitation have been held to be prospective in the sense that they do not have effect of reviving right of action which is already barred on the date of their coming into operation, nor do they have effect of extinguishing a right of action subsisting on the date – In this sense, limitation provisions can be procedural in context of one set of facts and substantive in context of a different set of facts – Unless language of provision dealing with period of limitation clearly manifests, in express terms or by necessary implication, a contrary intention divesting vested rights, such provision is to be construed as prospective. (Para 17)

(F) Words and Phrases – Expression “relating to” – Import – Expression “relating to” when used in legislation normally refers to “stand in some relation, to have bearing or concern, to pertain, to refer, to bring into association with or connection with – Expression ‘relating to’ when used in legislation has to be construed to give effect to legislative intent when required and necessary by giving an expansive and wider meaning. (Para 16)

Facts of the case:

Legal issue that arises in these appeals relates to interpretation of Section 24(1)(a) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and in particular the question, whether two-year period specified under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 will apply even after the repeal of the 1894 Act, or twelve-month period specified in Section 25 of the 2013 Act will apply for the awards made under clause (a) of Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act?

Findings of Court:

Prima facie opinion noted by the High Court on the factum of backdating of the subject award would not make any difference to outcome of relief pursued by the landowners by way of writ petition for a declaration that the subject acquisition proceedings had lapsed. Such declaration cannot be issued in the fact situation of the present case.

Period of 79 days from 26th May 2014 when High Court had stayed operation of the notification dated 19th March 2014, till the new notification dated 13th August 2014 was issued has to be excluded. Award purportedly dated 30th October 2014, was in any case duly made on or before the extended date of 20th March 2015. Hence, concerned award is valid. State of Maharashtra may conduct an inquiry in reference to the imputation regarding manipulation and backdating of the subject award and take such remedial and corrective action as may be necessary and to ensure such situations do not arise in future.

Result : Appeals allowed.